PSI - Issue 8

F. Vivaldi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 8 (2018) 345–353

350

Vivaldi et Al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000 – 000

6

Table 1: Experimental-numerical comparison during the bout.

Marker distance from handle Displacement component

540 mm

710 mm

790 mm

840 mm

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Experimental max displacement

183 mm 85 mm 322 mm 345 mm 377 mm 482 mm 394 mm 566 mm

Difference with simulation

8%

11%

3%

0%

4%

1%

0%

1%

Afterwards the residual displacements of the plastically deformed blade after the elastic recovery (springback) were compared, see Tab.2. Fig. 5 presents an additional visual comparison between the sabre after the bout and the corresponding FE simulation, showing a contour map of the residual total equivalent plastic deformation, and a detail of the most deformed part of the numerical model. The match for the loading phase vas very good, while larger errors were found for the second checked configuration. This can be attributed to the inaccuracy of the numerical simulation in capturing the springback effect. This issue is known and documented in the literature, for instance in Ghaei (2012) and Broggiato et Al. (2012).

Table 2: Experimental-numerical comparison after the bout.

Marker distance from handle Displacement Component

540 mm

710 mm

790 mm

840 mm

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Uy 1

Ux 1

Residual displacement

9 mm

1 mm 36 mm 4 mm 55 mm 7 mm 63 mm 8 mm

Difference with simulation

0 %

1 %

42 %

37 %

58 %

33 %

61 %

39 %

Figure 5: FE model, deformed shape at the end of the bout, experimental-numerical comparison and details of the plastically deformed area in the numerical model. To sum up, the numerical model was regarded capable to reproduce the real behavior of the sabre during bouts with a reasonable approximation, and can therefore be used to speculate about the inner local structural stress and strain state of the equipment.